What’s morally wrong with the following? A social worker opposed to sexual abuse of children believes parents should have the legal right to do so. A school guidance counselor is against bullying, but feels each student should be free to bully. A 1950s civil rights activist, while opposed to lynching, does not feel he can impose his morality on others.
Insane reasoning, isn’t it? But this is the logic of pro-choice “Christians.” They admit abortion is murder, yet want it to remain legal. One such person is Dr. Gilbert Raiford, who wrote the March 2 column, “Liberalism is consistent with Christianity.”
When I questioned him about the liberal view of abortion, he defended it by arguing that “liberals don’t advocate abortion, only the legal right to have one.” But is that sound Christian reasoning?
In our e-mail exchanges, he insisted there is a meaningful distinction between advocating abortion and simply allowing it. There isn’t.
Is it rational to say, “It’s wrong to kill your unborn children but you can if you want to?” Upon admitting abortion is murder, one
is morally obligated to oppose it and remove it as a “choice.” Doing any less is cowardly.
Choice is acceptable when it pertains to clothing, music, religion, speech, etc. But when the choice is to physically harm another, Christians and all people of goodwill must oppose it. Make no mistake; abortion is a premeditated violent act intended to kill the victim. Advocating for the “freedom” to abort is the same as advocating for the act itself.
Dr. Raiford is also blind to the fact that the anti-slavery movement (which he praises in his column) is very similar to the anti-abortion movement.
Slaves were not considered “persons;” the unborn are not considered “persons.” A slave was not considered a person until freed. An unborn baby is not considered a person until birthed. Slaves were considered property of the owner; the unborn are considered property of the mother.
Slaves were denied civil rights; the unborn are denied civil rights. In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to own slaves; in 1973, it upheld the right to abortion.
The abolitionist short-circuited pro-slavery arguments by using biblical principles to confer human rights to slaves; the pro-life movement seeks to do the same for the soon-to-be-born. If those abolitionists were alive today, they would be pro-life.
Finally, and most importantly, the pro-choice philosophy violates the major tenets of Christianity: The unborn are persons (Psalm 139:13-16; 22:10, Jeremiah 1:5, Isaiah 49:1). Children are a reward from God (Psalm 127:3). Thou shall not murder (Exodus 20:13). Treat others as you wish to be treated (Matthew 7:12). We are our brother’s keeper (Genesis 4:9). How we treat the “least of these” (Matthew 25:41-45). The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37). Governments are expected to protect the innocent (Romans 13:1-7).
These universal moral principles expose the pro-choice philosophy for what it is: evil and demonic. The liberal view of abortion is not compatible with the teachings of Christ. It is not God’s view; it should not be ours.
One cannot be both Christian and pro-choice. The unborn are indeed our little brothers and sisters and we should love and protect them. They are just as much children of God as you and I. But, for those who insist on being pro-choice, Jesus has a personal message: “He that is not on my side is against me.” (Matthew 12:30).
You have been warned.
Michael Ray, a Broward County resident, has been a practicing Christian of 23 years.
No Comment